Monday, June 29, 2015

In Ramadhan, Saudi gave France $12 billion while Children Die in Yemen

In a TV news report, the father was sitting on the hospital bed next to his daughter, Amal, trying to distract her from the pain. Her mother and two brothers had been killed in the fighting in Yemen and she had horrible burns on her arms and legs. The hospitals in Yemen were complaining of lack of medicine to treat such patients and reports say nearly 20 million Yemenis are in need of humanitarian aid. In the same week, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visited France and was due to sign $12 billion worth of defence contracts.

Ramadhan is a time where one witnesses the unity of this noble Ummah in our ibadat and worship of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Muslims everywhere performing the same actions; fasting, filling the masajid and praying for forgiveness. Muslims empathising with one another and donating generously to the poor amongst us as the Prophet ﷺ was most generous in Ramadhan. A few days ago, I watched a news report of the young Yemeni girl Amal, with her badly burned body, as well as news that the Saudi government was signing a $12 billion defence deal with France. I thought of the Rohingya’s fleeing persecution, the poverty in Somalia, the medicine Amal and others need and I imagine that all that will cost a fraction of the $12 billion dollar Ramadhan present the French will receive from the Saudi government.
In the Qur’an, in Surah Quraish, Allah سبحانه وتعالى reminds the Quraish that despite living in a barren place, they have wealth and prestige and their caravans travel untroubled to Yemen and Ash-Sham in winter and summer because they are seen as people of the House, the Kaabah. So shouldn’t they worship the Lord of this House, who gives them all these blessings?
فَلْيَعْبُدُوا رَبَّ هَٰذَا الْبَيْتِ
“Let them worship the Lord of this House”
(Quraish 106:3)
Shouldn’t they follow His Prophet ﷺ and the revelation from this Lord? Thinking of this ayah, I think of the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia’s role in Yemen where they are causing mischief and killing – aided by foreign powers. Like Quraish, these two government’s sit in lands blessed with oil, gas and other immense wealth, yet have abandoned the Sunnah and ruling by what the Lord of the Kaabah sent. Instead, they are busy shedding the blood of the Ummah, fostering a deadly Sunni-Shia division and watching as Amal and others suffer while they play games with the body of this noble ummah. May Allah سبحانه وتعالى aid the ummah to re-establish the Khilafah Rashidah that follows the Prophetic model so we are once again ruled by a caretaker who unites us, and rules us by Allah’s Book in every aspect hence following the command of Allah سبحانه وتعالى when He says,
فَلْيَعْبُدُوا رَبَّ هَٰذَا الْبَيْتِ
“Let them worship the Lord of this House”
(Quraish 106:3)

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Taji Mustafa
Media Representative of Hizb ut Tahrir in Britain

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Q&A: Iran’s Role in the Region

Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu. Dear respected Shaykh, may Allah سبحانه وتعالى protect and safeguard you. Why has the United States allowed Iran to escalate in its relatively rapid diverse military capabilities which has become one of the more important countries in the region in terms of playing influential roles on the course of events in both Iraq, Syria, the Gulf and the enflamed region in general? What is the American policy in containing this evasive role? May Allah سبحانه وتعالى reward you.
From Mais Bader

  1. To say that the role of Iran in the region is one of evasion is a misdirected saying. Whereas Iran is proceeding with America in all of the region’s issues… And Iran is a central state in the US policy in the region, and America depends on it in Iraq and Syria, and in Yemen, Afghanistan, and in Lebanon and others… The one following Iran’s actions with detailed analysis finds that apparent, as more than one of the Iranian leaders have expressed that Iran’s cooperation with the United States is what enabled it to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq… and so is the case in the other issues.
  2. We had published an Answer to Question on the 14th Shawwal 1434 AH, corresponding 21/8/2013 CE titled: “Reality of Iran in relation to US Policy”, in which we explained in detail the reality of Iran’s relationship with America and Iran’s cooperation with it in the region’s issues, you can refer to it to find out what is in it, and I have cited the following for you:
“All of the political work in the region carried out by Iran is in congruence and accordance with American agendas:
  1. In Lebanon, Iran founded and armed a party from the followers of its Madhab and, such that it became a special army separate from the Lebanese army, and the Lebanese regime acknowledged it and their weaponry, knowing that the Lebanese system is a secular regime that follows American politics. The Lebanese regime does not allow any other party to bear arms nor did it acknowledge the arming of any other party. The Party of Iran in Lebanon with the support of the Syrian regime associated with America as did Iran, and America did not prevent the Lebanese regime from allowing Iran’s Hezb intervention in Syria to prop up the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad, rather there was an American implied consent to the intervention of this party in Syria without being hampered by the Lebanese army.
  2. When America occupied Iraq it was met with an unexpected resistance, so it entered Iran into Iraq to help influence those belonging to its Madhab, to affect them and prevent their movement against the occupation, even to make them stand against the resistance, even confronting it and giving legitimacy to the occupation and to the established system. Especially after 2005 America allowed the ascension of a coalition of pro-Iranian parties into power, led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari and then al-Maliki, and these governments were installed by America and are linked to it. Maliki’s government, backed by Iran, signed security and strategic agreements with the United States to maintain its influence after the official end of the occupation of Iraq, indicating American satisfaction with the role played by Iran whose officials admitted its cooperation with the United States in the occupation and its work to secure the stability of American influence in Iraq. Iran opened its embassy in Iraq immediately after the occupation, and al-Jaafari was not elected until the Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi visited Baghdad in 2005 at the height of the occupation. The two sides condemned the acts of resistance to the occupation under the pretext of condemning terrorism in Iraq. Jaafari’s visit to Iran was used to sign several agreements, including a cooperation agreement in the field of intelligence between them to establish security and control of border crossings and linking Basra to Iran’s electricity grid and the establishment of an oil pipeline between Basra and Abadan.
The relationship between Iran and the Syrian regime is an old one, dating back to the time of the first Intifada in the early 80’s of the past century. Iran then supported the Syrian regime in suppressing the Muslims of Syria, so as to keep it within the American project in support of the regime led by its agents from the Assad family. Iran did this knowing that it is a secular nationalist Baathi system congruent with the regime of Saddam, which they were fighting although it had nothing to do with Islam, rather Saddam fought Islam and its people. Iran did this well aware that Saddam was linked to America, it did not defend the rights of the Muslims, they did just the opposite in declaring war against them and bringing victory to a criminal Kufr regime, and Iran continues to do so. The Iranian regime maintains close relations with the Syrian leadership, which includes military, economic and political ties. Iran transferred many weapons to support the Assad regime and provided it with oil and gas at discounted prices due to the lack of reserves of energy in Syria. These political relations can particularly be observed in the Iranian interference in the Syrian revolution when the Assad regime stood on the verge of collapse. Had it not been for Iranian interference by sending troops of the Revolutionary Guards, and troops from Iran’s Hezb and Maliki’s militias that follow Iran, Bashar and his regime would have collapsed. The massacres of Qusair, Homs and today’s chemical massacres in al-Ghouta and others bear witness to this intervention.
– As for Afghanistan, Iran supported the U.S. occupation and the constitution laid down by the government created by America with Karzai as president, all of that was an Iranian service to America. Iran has secured the north of the country when America failed to defeat the Taliban. Former Iranian President Rafsanjani mentioned that: “If it were not for our troops fighting the Taliban, America would have sunk in the Afghan quagmire.” (al-Sharq al-Awsat Newspaper, 2/9/2002). Mohammad Ali Abtahi, vice for the former Iranian President Khatami for legal affairs and parliamentary elections in the Gulf and the Challenges of the Future Congress, held in Abu Dhabi on the evening of 1/13/2004, said: “If it were not for Iranian cooperation, Kabul and Baghdad would have never fallen so easily. But we received a bonus and we are within the axis of evil!” (Islam Online Net, 1/13/2004)  President Ahmadinejad has repeated the like on his visit to New York to attend the United Nations meetings in an interview with The New York Times on 9/26/2008 where he said, “Iran has provided a helping hand to the United States with regard to Afghanistan and the result of this assistance was the U.S. President’s direct threat to launch a military attack against us. Our country has also provided assistance to America in the restoration of calmness and stability in Iraq.”
  1. What testifies to all the above is the outcome of the nuclear negotiations and America’s insistence on closing this file in order to improve public relations with Iran to implement the role America dictates for it in the region, under the pretext of common interests and without a cover, not even with a shroud as it was in the past! The American president delivered a speech in front of the White House to specifically talk about the latest nuclear agreement with Iran, in which he described the agreement as “good and meets our core goals”, and he said, “for the Iranian people, we are ready to work for the common interests” (Source: Radio Sawa of America 2/4/2015)… It is clear from the US President’s statements that he wants to work with Iran under so-called common interests! What could be the common interest with the big Shaytaan other than to accomplish America’s projects in the region?!
  2. Then what had happened and what is happening of harmonious plans between America, Iran and the Houthis in the Yemen events! As for the Houthi relationship with Iran, it needs no proof as it is more apparent than a flag lit with fire… As for America’s support for the Houthis, then every person who has sight and insight is aware of that, as America is behaving in Yemen with its known arrogance, i.e. with armed power and brutality. Then the Houthis occupied Sanaa and other places other than Sanaa, arresting and killing under the excuse of “the People’s Revolt and the People’s Committees…”, and America has been supporting these movements of the Houthis on both politically and security-wise:
Politically: America does not regard the Houthis as terrorists like Al-Qaeda, instead it regards them as a political movement. The US Ambassador Matthew Tauler said in his press conference on 18/9/2014 that: “We differentiate between those groups that participated in the political process, the Houthi movement participated in the National Dialogue Conference and many positive outcomes were achieved as a result, and they have political positions and legitimate ambitions… and therefore, we support the Houthis and their movement to do the same practices as those performed by the political movements and groups”. (Source: Press Observers Website)
Security: Upon the entry of the Houthis to Sana’a, the army and police resisted them and killed seven of the Houthis on 9/9/2014, and Hadi was about to prevail until America rushed to sending Ibn Omar, the UN representative (or in reality America’s representative), and he put pressure on Hadi, and floated the issue by calling for negotiations, and giving the green light to the Houthis to heat up their movement through the atmosphere of negotiation, backed by the US pressures on Ibn Omar Ali Hadi…
  1. Moreover, the recent events confirm this support, and I cite some of what was mentioned for you from the Answer to Question dated 27/3/2015 on this matter: “America has extended support to the Houthis by way of Iran with various kinds of weapons and equipment so that they are able to dominate Yemen by force because it realizes that the political medium in Yemen is dominated by Britain’s creations… Thus, the Houthis thought they had the power to dominate Yemen. Therefore, they besieged the president to force him to give them what they sought for the laws they had issued. He would agree, then delay in implementation…until they imposed house arrest on him but he escaped, moving to Aden. They pursued him there, but he escaped again… America realized that its Houthi followers found themselves in a shambles. They had extended themselves across the country, but were unable to either successfully dominate nor were they able to return to their stronghold in the north. therefore America saw to save them through limited military action, to strike two birds with one stone: to show them as being assaulted, after the people had begun to see them as aggressors; and to create the atmosphere for pressing negotiations for a compromise solution as this is its well-trodden path, when unable to take it alone… All of this has become clearer by following what took place, and what is taking place. Thereby Saudi Arabia consulted with America before the military action and those undertaking the active military role – especially the Saudi King Salman and Egyptian President Sisi – are American agents. As for the rest of the Gulf States, Jordan and Morocco, their role is more political, as per the British habit in countering America, such that it remains in the picture and has a share in the forthcoming negotiations, to take its piece of the cake in the distribution of influence. While pressing military action succeeds at times, in opening the door of negotiation, it also fails at times, destabilizing matters anew, engulfing Yemen in its fire – Yemen, who was content and happy a time not long ago…when its pure land was not desecrated by the agents and disbelieving colonialists”.
And reflecting on what happened and its results demonstrate the fact that America is the one in charge of the course of events, thus the focus of the Saudi attacks were on the weapons that the Muslims paid for, and most of the victims were civilians, while only a little were of the Houthis… Meanwhile, Iran did not interfere, but remained watching from afar although the voices were raised with the Decisive Storm military operation which is falling on the heads of the Houthis! This proves that the Maestro of the movements adjusts the rhythms to arrive to solutions which save the Houthis, not destroy them, and to give them a significant share, not eradicate them… and that Saudi Arabia is aware of this, and is driving the Storm of its decisiveness and hope in accordance with this rhythm…! In addition, Iran is aware of this and watches without military intervention, according to this rhythm…! Even further, it even agreed to the inspections of its ships carrying aid before reaching Yemen’s shores, that is because it is what America had wanted, thus Iran succumbed..! Thus, just as Saudi Arabia is disciplined with its decisiveness and hope according to America’s directions, so is Iran, as both of them realize the purpose of these intense actions which we have outlined. And there they are turning towards a heated ceasefire that precedes the cold solutions!
  1. In conclusion, Iran is not “evading” from American policy, rather it did not even leave it, all under the pretext of common interest with the big Shaytaan!

Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
15 Sha’ban 1436 AH
02/06/2015 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page:

Accounting the rulers is a Fareedah (obligation)

Allah سبحانه وتعالى said:
كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ
“You are the best Ummah to have been raised up for mankind, you command the Ma’roof and you forbid the Munkar”
(Aali ‘Imraan 110)
And He سبحانه وتعالى said:
وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“Let there be from you an Ummah calling to the Khair and commanding the Ma’roof and forbidding the Munkar and they are those who are the successful ones”
(Aali ‘Imraan 104)
Allah سبحانه وتعالى has requested the commanding of Ma’roof and the forbidding of the Munkar in these two Aayaat in addition to many others in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem. The request (Talab) has been connected by the indicator (by a Qareenah) that indicates decisiveness (Al-Jazm). This is the praise and commendation attached to those who undertake the commanding of the Ma’roof and forbidding of the Munkar. This is when He سبحانه وتعالى said:
كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ
“You are the best Ummah to have been raised up for mankind”
(Aali ‘Imraan 110)
And the saying of The Almighty,
وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“And they are those who are the successful ones”
(al-Baqara: 5)
And it is also due to what was related by At-Tirmidhi from Hudhaifah (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
«وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَتَأْمُرُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَلَتَنْهَوُنَّ عَنْ الْمُنْكَرِ أَوْ لَيُوشِكَنَّ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَبْعَثَ عَلَيْكُمْ عِقَابًا مِنْهُ ثُمَّ تَدْعُونَهُ فَلَا يُسْتَجَابُ لَكُمْ»
“By Him in whose hand is my soul, you must command the Maroof and you must forbid the Munkar or Allah will be about to send a punishment from Him upon you. Then you will make Du’aa (supplicate) to him but you will not be responded to”.
Al-Baihaqi, At-Tabaraani and Ibn Hibbaan related from Abu Hurairah (ra) that he said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,
«سَيَكُونُ بَعْدِي خُلَفَاءُ يَعْمَلُونَ بِمَا يَعْلَمُونَ، وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ ثُمَّ يَكُونُ مِنْ بَعْدِ خُلَفَاءُ يَعْمَلُونَ بِمَا لَا يَعْلَمُونَ، وَيفْعَلُونَ مَا لَا يُؤْمَرُونَ فَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ عَلَيْهِمْ فَقَدْ بَرِئَ، وَلَكِن مَنْ رَضِيَ وَتَابَعَ«
“There will be after me Khulafaa’ who will act by that which they know and do as they are commanded. And there will be after that Khulafaa’ who will act by what they don’t know and do that which they have not been commanded. So whoever refuses to acknowledge that from them then he will have freed himself (from sin) however whoever is content and follows (will not be free)”.
In the Musnad of Abu Ya’laa it has come with the wording:
«سَيَكُونُ بَعْدِي خُلَفَاءُ يَعْمَلُونَ بِمَا يَعْلَمُونَ، وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ، وَسَيَكُونُ بَعْدِي خُلَفَاءُ يَعْمَلُونَ بِمَا لا يَعْلَمُونَ، وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا لا يُؤْمَرُونَ، فَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ عَلَيْهِمْ بَرِئٌ، وَمَنْ أَمْسَكَ يَدَهُ سَلِمَ، وَلَكِنْ مَنْ رَضِيَ وَتَابَعَ»
“There will be after me Khulafaa’ who will act by that which they know and do as they are commanded. And there will be after me Khulafaa’ who will act by what they don’t know and do that which they have not been commanded. So whoever refuses to acknowledge that from them then he will have freed himself (from sin) and whoever withholds his hand will be safe however whoever is content and follows (will not be free)” (In the wording of Al-Baihaqi it states ‘after them’ in the place of ‘after me’ in the second line which is more Saheeh).
Similar to this was also related from At-Tabaraani except he used the wording ‘Umaraa’ (Ameers/leaders) instead of Khulafaa’ whilst the meaning of both terms is one and the same.
There is also that which Al-Imaam At-Tirmidhi related with a sound Isnaad from Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out to them whilst we were nine (in number) and he said:
»اسمعوا! هل سمعتم؟! إنه سيكون بعدي أمراء فمن دخل عليهم فصدقهم بكذبهم، وأعانهم على ظلمهم، فليس مني، ولست منه، وليس بوارد عليَّ الحوض، ومن لم يدخل عليهم، ولم يعنهم على ظلمهم، ولم يصدقهم بكذبهم، فهو مني، وأنا منه، وهو وارد عليَّ الحوض»
“Hear! Have you heard! Verily there will be after me leaders so whoever joins them and affirms them in their lies and assists them in their oppression he is not from me and I am not from him and he will not approach my Hawd (basin in Jannah). And whoever does not join them, and does not assist them in their oppression and does not affirm them in their lies, he is from me and I am from him, and he will approach my Hawd”.
Through these evidences and others which are abundant in the sources of legislation the obligation (Fareedah) to account the rulers upon their actions and their conduct is made clear. The command to effect change in respect to them has come in a decisive manner if the rulers were to transgress the rights or fall short in the obligations toward the subjects or neglect an affair from the affairs. This is specifically the case if they were to contravene and go against the Ahkaam of Islaam or rule by other than what Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed. This is all plain and clear within the Noble Aayaat and Ahaadeeth and within the reality of the life of the Muslims throughout the ages.
The Ahaadeeth Ash-Shareefah in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has urged making a denouncement upon the rulers specifically include when he said:
»ستكون أمراء فتعرفون وتنكرون، فمن عرف برئ، ومن أنكر سلم، ولكن من رضي وتابع«
“There will be leaders, you will recognise and you will deny (what they do). So whoever recognises will be innocent and whoever denies will be safe. However the one who is pleased (or content) and follows…”
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ has therefore commanded denouncing the rulers and made this denouncement obligatory with any style from amongst the styles of reprimanding and reproach and with sharpness in speech and harshness.
This is whilst it considers the one who does not denounce the ruler as a partner to them in respect to sin. Making those who do not account the rulers partners to them in sin is a Qareenah (connected implication) indicating the obligation (Wujoob) of accounting the rulers and applying pressure upon them whilst not being negligent in respect to that.
As for the manifestations in the reality of the life of the Muslims throughout different ages then these are numerous and are nearly too many to be counted.
So it has been established that the Muslims had objections in respect to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in matters related to his capacity as the head of State and not in his capacity as a Messenger in a number of instances. So in the Battle of the Trench (Al-Khandaq) Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh and Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah (rah) rejected the agreement of the Messenger ﷺ to give Ghatafaan a third of the crop yield of Al-Madinah. On this occasion Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh said: ‘By Allah we will not give them anything but the sword’ and so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: «أنت وذاك»  ‘You and that’ (i.e. this is your right to say) and then he ﷺ acted in accordance to their opinion.
And in Al-Hudaibiah ‘Umar (ra) and a number of the Sahaabah (rah) objected to the Messenger of Allah’s ﷺ agreement to the treaty and said: ‘On what (basis) do we give the Dunyaa in respect to our Deen?’
Similarly the ‘Ulamaa (scholars) of the Muslims and the general masses accounted the Khulafaa’ Ar-Rashidun, the Khulafaa’ of Bani Umayyah and the Khulafaa’ of Bani Al-‘Abbaas.
So you have the example of ‘Umar (ra) preventing Abu Bakr from selling clothing until he had finished dealing with the affairs of the people.
And there is Bilal who accounted ‘Umar in respect to the land of ‘As-Sawad’ until ‘Umar said: ‘O Allah, make Bilal suffice me and his companionship’.
This is whilst delegations would come from the various regions to account ‘Uthman (ra).
The four Abdullahs accounted Mu’aawiyah severely in respect to his taking the Bai’ah for Yazeed during his lifetime.
Sufyaan Ath-Thawri accounted Al-Mansoor with the words: ‘Fear Allah for the land has become filled with oppression and injustice’ causing Al-Mansoor to lower his head.
Ahmad bin Hanbal accounted Al-Ma’moon in relation to what he said in terms of the creation of the Qur’aan.
Indeed there are many examples which have come in the histories of men and some of these were collated by the Eminent Scholar ‘Abdul-‘Azeez Al-Badriy (Rahimuhullah) in his book: ‘Al-Islaam between the ‘Ulamaa (scholars) and therulers’.
This accounting has had a great impact and effect upon the life of the Muslims throughout the ages in spite of the repression of some of the Khulafaa’ and the dominance of other rulers and in these times the accounting stood out in the best of its forms at the time when it was most needed.
Indeed, how great is the need for us in this current day of ours to account our rulers who rule and govern by other than what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed, to stand in opposition to them, prevent them from conspiring against the Muslims, to stand against their oppression and to take a firm hold of them whatever that costs us in terms of sacrifices in the way of Allah سبحانه وتعالى,
In the Hadeeth of ‘Ubadah Bin As-Samit (ra) it was mentioned that he said:
«إنا بايعنا رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم، على السمع والطاعة في النشاط والكسل، والنفقة في العسر واليسر، وعلى الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر، وعلى أن نقول في الله: لا تأخذنا فيه لومة لائم»
“Verily we gave the Bai’ah to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ upon hearing and obeying in activeness and laziness, and to spend in hardship and ease, and to order the Ma’roof and forbid the Munkar, and that we would say for Allah’s sake (the truth) without being influenced by the blame of the blamer when doing that…”.
This is as extracted by the two Sheikhs, Ahmad and other from the Hadeeth of ‘Ubadah in which there was some additions of variations which included most importantly the matter of ‘Al-Kufr ul-Bawaah’ (Clear manifest Kufr) when he related as part of the Hadeeth:
«وأن لا ننازع الأمر أهله، إلا أن تروا كفراً بواحاً عندكم فيه من الله برهان»
“And that we will not dispute the authority of its people unless we see Kufr Bawaah (manifest disbelief) in which you have from Allah a Burhaan (clear evidence)”.
Abu Dharr (ra) related that his Khalil (the Messenger) ﷺ advised (or exhorted him) with a branch or element of goodness:
«وصاني أن لا أخاف في الله لومة لائم، وأوصاني أن أقول الحق، وإن كان مراً»
“He advised me to not fear in the way of Allah the blame or the blamer (i.e. scorn) and he advised me to say the Haqq (truth) and even if the truth is bitter”. (i.e. hard for others to swallow).
This is whilst Jareer Ibn Abdullah (ra) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saying:
«ما من رجل يكون في قوم يعمل فيهم بالمعاصي يقدرون على أن يغيروا عليه، ولا يغيرون، إلا أصابهم الله منه بعقاب قبل أن يموتوا»
“There is no man who is amongst a people in which acts of disobedience are committed whilst they are capable of changing that, whilst they do not (work to) change (that), except that Allah will afflict them with a punishment from him before they die”.
And here we will mention the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:
«سيد الشهداء حمزة بن عبد المطلب، ورجل قام إلى إمام جائر فأمره ونهاه فقتله»
“The master of martyrs is Hamzah Ibn Abdul Mutallib and a man who stands before the unjust Imaam and then commands him and forbids him and then he (the Imaam) kills him (for that)”
This includes the textual implication in respect to the importance of accounting the ruler and its great merit and even if the matter requires that the Muslim sacrifices his life in the way of Allah in order to remove the injustice or oppression and realise the Haqq (truth).
It is to this act of Khair (good) that Hizb ut Tahrir invites you so that you work along with us in the obedience of Allah and in seeking His pleasure whilst not fearing in Allah’s way the blame or reproach of the blamer. This is because if we were not to do this then the evil will become widespread and the corruption will dominate over the earth whilst the Khair (goodness) disappears from amongst the people and we fall into anger of Allah Ta’Aalaa.
By: Yousuf Salaamah
Written for Ar-Rayah Newspaper – Issue 21

Q&A: Withholding the Product (as Collateral) for its Price

Question by Izzideen Ibn Abd As-Salam:
As-Salaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatulah Wa Barakatuhu
Our honourable Sheikh, I pray that you receive my message and you are in the best of health. I pray that you will be patient to address my question which I will outline in this manner: A buyer goes to a seller to buy a house or a plot of land, the sale will be in payment of installments as they agreed upon. The buyer takes the house or the plot of land, but he does not possess the full ownership until the last payment of the installments. The buyer can do almost anything with what he bought except for selling it. For example, he can not sell the what he purchased only after paying the last installment of payment. The question posed now: “People approach members of the Hizb to ask them about this type of transaction because of the trust they have in them. However, the replies from the members differ, some say it is permitted and others say it is prohibited as follows: Those who say it is permitted: they base this transaction on the concept of collateral (Rahn), that is the contract is one of Collateral (Rahn), or they permit it based on “suspended contracts” (Al ‘Uqod Al Mu’alaqa). As for those who say it is prohibited, they base it on the fact that advanced or deferred selling must guarantee the complete ownership, considering that individual ownership is “The Shar’i ruling estimated by money or benefit that enables the one who holds it to benefit from it or receive compensation for it”.
Because of the importance of the topic that involves the transactions of the people our honourable Sheikh, we decided to refer this difference to you, Barak Allah Feek.
Wa As-Salaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuhu

Question by Nidhal Nazzal:
As-Salaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuhu
Please provide the Shari’ ruling on the following issue: Is it permitted for me to buy a car from someone by installments, on the seller’s condition not to register the car under my name only to be legally waived after paying the final payment of the installment, with the fact that I have possession of the car and I am using it. Is this permissible? Barak Allah Feek.

Wa Alaikum us Salaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu,
The questions of both Brother Izzideen and Brother Nidhal are similar in topic, so the answer is for both of them:
This issue is known in Fiqh as “Withholding the Product (as a Collateral) for its Price” i.e. that the product to be sold will be kept as a security with the seller until the buyer pays its price. This situation does not arise if the seller and buyer were of the character that the Prophet ﷺ described in the Hadeeth extracted by Bukhari on the authority of Jabir Ibn Abdullah (ra):
«رَحِمَ اللَّهُ رَجُلًا سَمْحًا إِذَا بَاعَ، وَإِذَا اشْتَرَى، وَإِذَا اقْتَضَى»
“Allah’s mercy is on the well mannered man when he sells, buys, and take a loan”.
Whereas sometimes they differ around receiving the product first or payment first, and the seller might withhold the product as collateral until he receives its price, thus giving rise to this situation. The Fuqaha differed regarding this issue, some permit it on conditions, and other say it is prohibited, and there are some who permit it in some cases and prohibit it in others… and so on.
After studying this issue my view is inclined towards the following:
First: Type of product
  1. That the product is measurable, weighed, or planted…etc. like the sale of rice, cotton, textiles…etc.
  2. That the product is not measurable, weighed…etc, like selling of a car, house, or animal…etc.

Second: Sales Price
  1. Up-front i.e. in cash, like buying a product for ten thousand in cash up front.
  2. Deferred payment for a given period, like buying the product for ten thousand but is paid after a year.
  3. That some of the payment is paid up-front and the other part is deferred, like buying the product with the first payment of five thousand, and the other five is paid after a year for example, or is paid in monthly installments.

Third: The Shariah ruling differs according to how the above matters differ:
The first case: The product is not measurable and not weighted… such as the selling of the house or a car or an animal:
  1. The up-front payment, like buying a car for ten thousand in cash, and that it is documented in the contract.
In this case, the seller may withhold the product, which remains with him as a collateral until the up-front payment is made according to the contract. The evidence for this is the Hadeeth narrated by Tirmidhi which is classified a Hasan Hadeeth. On the authority of Abi Umamah, he said: I heard the Prophet ﷺ say in the sermon in the Farewell Pilgrimage:
«العَارِيَةُ مُؤَدَّاةٌ، وَالزَّعِيمُ غَارِمٌ، وَالدَّيْنُ مَقْضِيٌّ»
“What is borrowed is rendered, and the guarantor is responsible, the debt is paid.”
Za’eem: guarantor, Garim: liable, and the evidence is in His ﷺ saying: «وَالدَّيْنُ مَقْضِيٌّ»  “the debt is paid”. If the buyer receives the product prior to paying the cost, it is buying on loan. And «وَالدَّيْنُ مَقْضِيٌّ»  “the debt is paid”  i.e. the priority is to pay the debt as long as long as the purchase is in cash, in other words to pay the price first as long as the price in the contract must be in cash up front … Al-Kasaani says in Bada’i As-San’i commenting on the Hadeeth (His saying (peace be upon him) « وَالدَّيْنُ مَقْضِيّ» «the debt is paid», the Prophet (peace be upon him) described the debt of being paid in general or Mutlaq, if the payment is delayed for the delivery of the product then this debt is not paid). This is contrary to the text.
Thus it is permissible for the seller to withhold the product until the buyer pays its price, and so there will be no debt, and this is in agreement with the contract because the sale was not by debt but in cash.
  1. The price is deferred, in the case of buying a car with ten thousand which is paid after one year; in this case it is not permitted to withhold the merchandise until the completion of the payment of the price because the price is deferred in the contract by the seller’s approval. He is not permitted to withhold the product to ensure the price payment as long as he had sold it for a deferred price, so he annulled his right to withholding the product, and therefore it is not permissible for him to withhold the product, but should deliver it to the buyer.
  2. The price can be both up-front and deferred, like buying the car with the first five thousand paid off in cash, and the other five thousand paid after one year at once, or paid later in installments.
In this case it is allowed for the buyer to withhold the product until the up-front payment is received, after which he is not permitted to withhold the product, because of the completion of the deferred payment, this is for what we mentioned in the points 1 and 2.
In conclusion, it is permitted for the seller to withhold the product for the up-front price payment, i.e. if in the contract it stipulates that the payment is up-front and immediate, it is permitted for the seller to withhold the product until the buyer pays off the up-front cost payment according to the contract.
It is incorrect to ask how the buyer will withhold his product before receiving it, i.e. before he owns it. This is because to hold a product as collateral (Rahn) is not allowed except if it is allowed to be sold. Since the product bought is not allowed to be sold except after receiving it according to the Hadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ narrated by Al-Bayhaqi, from Ibn Abbas who said: The Prophet ﷺ said to I’taab Bin Usaid:
«إني قد بعثتك إلى أهل الله، وأهل مكة، فانههم عن بيع ما لم يقبضوا».
“I have sent you to the people of Allah, and the people of Makkah, forbid them from selling that which they did not receive”
And the Hadeeth that was narrated by At-Tabarani from Hakeem Bin Hizam that he said: O Messenger of Allah I sell using various transactions, which is permissible for me and which is prohibited? He ﷺ said:
«لَا تَبِيعَنَّ مَا لَمْ تَقْبِضْ»
“Do not sell that which you do not receive”.
These Hadeeths clearly state the prohibition of selling that which is not received, how is it then that the product is kept as collateral before it is received?
This is incorrect because these two Hadeeths are for the products which are measured and weighed… but if the product is other than that like a house or an animal, then it is allowed to sell it before receiving it based on the Hadeeth of the Prophet of Allah ﷺ narrated by Bukhari from Ibn Umar (ra), he said,
فَكُنْتُ عَلَى بَكْرٍ صَعْبٍ لِعُمَرَ، فَكَانَ يَغْلِبُنِي، فَيَتَقَدَّمُ أَمَامَ القَوْمِ، فَيَزْجُرُهُ عُمَرُ وَيَرُدُّهُ، ثُمَّ يَتَقَدَّمُ، فَيَزْجُرُهُ عُمَرُ وَيَرُدُّهُ، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ r  لِعُمَرَ: «بِعْنِيهِ»، قَالَ: هُوَ لَكَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، قَالَ: «بِعْنِيهِ» فَبَاعَهُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ r، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ r «هُوَ لَكَ يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ، تَصْنَعُ بِهِ مَا شِئْتَ»
“We were travelling with the Prophet , I was riding a rebellious camal’s calf that belonged to Omar, I could not control it, it would precede the lines of, then Omar would yell at it and push it back, this was repeated, then the Prophet  said to Omar: “Sell it to me”. So Omar said, “It is yours O Prophet of Allah,” then I said to the Prophet: “Sell it to me” so He  did. The Prophet  said, “It is yours O Abdullah Ibn Omar, do what you please with it”.
This action in the merchandise was as a gift before receiving it, which shows the full ownership of the product before receiving it, and shows that selling it is permitted because it was owned by its seller.
Hence it is allowed to hold a product as a collateral before receiving it (cost payment), as long as it is allowed to be sold before receiving it, but this is only if the product is non-measurable or weighed like a house, a car, an animal, and so on. In case of conducting a purchase contract of up-front payment or there is a sum of advanced payment, then it is allowed to withhold the product as a collateral until receiving the price, until the up-front payment or the lump sum of the up-front payment is paid.  
The Second Situation: the product is from the measurable and weighed category, like buying amounts of rice, cotton, or textiles, in this situation, it is prohibited to withhold the product for its price, whatever the nature of the payment of the price may be: up-front or postponed, or deferred payment in a lump sum or in installments:
If the price is up-front payment, it is prohibited to withhold the product as we explained above.
If the price should be paid in advance, it is not allowed to withhold the product, i.e. to hold it as collateral, because it is not allowed to hold the measured or weighed products as a security before receiving the price, according to the above-mentioned Hadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ. In the case of the up-front payment, the buyer has to deal with it in two ways:
Either to sell the goods in advanced payment and give it to the buyer and have patience with the buyer, whether he gives the price in advance or after a while without holding the goods as a collateral… or not to sell the goods, i.e. without any collateral for the merchandise.
Thus if the measurable or weighed products are sold for the up-front payment or deferred payment, it is not permitted for the seller to withhold the goods as a collateral with him until the payment of the price.
This is what I think is most preponderant and Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

6 Sha’ban 1436 AH
24/5/2015 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page: